and many more benefits!

GMAT Club Timer Informer

Hi GMATClubber!

Thank you for using the timer!
We noticed you are actually not timing your practice. Click the START button first next time you use the timer.
There are many benefits to timing your practice, including:

Hide Tags

Show Tags

Updated on: 19 Oct 2015, 01:09

3

16

00:00

A

B

C

D

E

Difficulty:

85% (hard)

Question Stats:

45%(01:02) correct 55%(01:19) wrong based on 362 sessions

HideShow timer Statistics

Not only did the systematic clearing of forests in the United States create farmland (especially in the Northeast) and gave consumers relatively inexpensive houses and furniture, but it also caused erosion and very quickly deforested whole regions.

A. Not only did the systematic clearing of forests in the United States create farmland (especially in the Northeast) and gave consumers relatively inexpensive houses and furniture, but it alsoB. Not only did the systematic clearing of forests in the United States create farmland (especially in the Northeast), which gave consumers relatively inexpensive houses and furniture, but alsoC. The systematic clearing of forests in the United States, creating farmland (especially in the Northeast) and giving consumers relatively inexpensive houses and furniture, but alsoD. The systematic clearing of forests in the United States created farmland (especially in the Northeast) and gave consumers relatively inexpensive houses and furniture, but it alsoE. The systematic clearing of forests in the United States not only created farmland (especially in the Northeast), giving consumers relatively inexpensive houses and furniture, but it

Most Helpful Expert Reply

Re: Not only did the systematic clearing of forests in the
[#permalink]

Show Tags

14 Aug 2012, 06:13

6

1

Hi All,

Not only did the systematic clearing of forests in the United States create farmland (especially in the Northeast) and gave consumers relatively inexpensive houses and furniture, but it also caused erosion and very quickly deforested whole regions.

Let's first understand the intended meaning of the sentence. The sentence is talking about two effects of systematic clearing of forests in the US.

Positive aspects: a. It created farmland. b. It gave consumers relatively inexpensive houses and furniture.

Error Analysis: There are two positive effects of systematic clearing of forests. The first entity has the verb “did create” and the second verb is “gave”. This is incorrect because “did” is applicable to both the verbs. Hence, use of “create” is correct but use of “gave” is incorrect because we cannot write past tense verb after “did”.

POE:

A. Not only did the systematic clearing of forests in the United States create farmland (especially in the Northeast) and gave consumers relatively inexpensive houses and furniture, but it also: Incorrect for the reason stated above.

B. Not only did the systematic clearing of forests in the United States create farmland (especially in the Northeast), which gave consumers relatively inexpensive houses and furniture, but also: Incorrect.1. By removing “and”, this choice has removed the intended list in the sentence. This change distorts the meaning. Rather than saying that clearing of forests led to two positive effects, this choice presents the second effect as the result of the first effect.2. Relative pronoun “which” incorrectly refers to “farmland”, meaning that farmland gave consumers relatively inexpensive houses and furniture.

C. The systematic clearing of forests in the United States, creating farmland (especially in the Northeast) and giving consumers relatively inexpensive houses and furniture, but also: Incorrect.1. There is no main verb in the first part of the sentence. We have a fragment here.2. Verb-ing modifiers preceded by comma modify the preceding clause. There is no clause preceding these modifiers because there is no main verb.

D. The systematic clearing of forests in the United States created farmland (especially in the Northeast) and gave consumers relatively inexpensive houses and furniture, but it also: Correct. Notice that it is not necessary to use the idiom “not only… but also…” here. The sentence essentially is presenting the positive and the negative sides of the systematic clearing of forests. The first part of the sentence is presenting the two positive effects in correct parallel manner. “but” correctly presents the contrast and is followed by the negative effects of clearing of forests. Essentially, there is no change in the intended meaning of the sentence. This choice is still presenting the two contrasting sides of clearing of forests.

E. The systematic clearing of forests in the United States not only created farmland (especially in the Northeast), giving consumers relatively inexpensive houses and furniture, but it: Incorrect. By removing “and”, this choice removes the intended parallel list. Per the original sentence, there are two independent positive effects of systematic clearing of forests. But this choice makes the second independent effect the result of the first effect. By doing so, this choice distorts the meaning of the sentence.

General Discussion

Re: Not only did the systematic clearing of forests in the
[#permalink]

Show Tags

23 Oct 2006, 13:02

(A)
Only between (A) and (B).Pronoun "which" in (B) incorrectly refers to "farmland" giving relatively inexpensive houses and furniture rather than "systematic clearing of forests" giving relatively inexpensive houses and furniture.

Show Tags

Re: Not only did the systematic clearing of forests in the
[#permalink]

Show Tags

23 Oct 2006, 18:40

1

2

D

The use of "not only" in the original sentence can be misleading. Here the two effects of clearing the forests are opposite (one is beneficial, the other is detrimental). So, D stands for correct meaning and verb usage.

Show Tags

Re: Not only did the systematic clearing of forests in the
[#permalink]

Show Tags

25 Oct 2006, 20:18

D 2.

A is not parrallel.
Not only did the systematic clearing of forests in the United States create farmland (especially in the Northeast) and gave consumers relatively inexpensive houses and furniture, but it also caused

Re: Not only did the systematic clearing of forests in the
[#permalink]

Show Tags

25 Oct 2006, 22:15

anandsebastin wrote:

D

The use of "not only" in the original sentence can be misleading. Here the two effects of clearing the forests are opposite (one is beneficial, the other is detrimental). So, D stands for correct meaning and verb usage.

Exactly. Most test-takers fall for the "not only...but also.." trap when misused in this way.

Show Tags

Re: Not only did the systematic clearing of forests in the
[#permalink]

Show Tags

12 Aug 2012, 17:40

Viperace wrote:

D 2.

A is not parrallel.Not only did the systematic clearing of forests in the United States create farmland (especially in the Northeast) and gave consumers relatively inexpensive houses and furniture, but it also caused

Agreed. I'm not sure how the OA is A...can anyone explain given the above?

Re: Not only did the systematic clearing of forests in the
[#permalink]

Show Tags

12 Aug 2012, 23:35

A. Not only did the systematic clearing of forests in the United States create farmland (especially in the Northeast) and gave consumers relatively inexpensive houses and furniture, but it also

did and caused are parallel. It in the second part refers to the systematic clearing of forests. Looks fine. Gave and did is parallel, so that is correct too.

B. Not only did the systematic clearing of forests in the United States create farmland (especially in the Northeast), which gave consumers relatively inexpensive houses and furniture, but also

Which refers to the farmland. Changes the meaning of the sentence. Second part has no pronoun.

C. The systematic clearing of forests in the United States, creating farmland (especially in the Northeast) and giving consumers relatively inexpensive houses and furniture, but also

Usage of but is inappropriate. There is no contrast in this construction of the sentence.

D. The systematic clearing of forests in the United States created farmland (especially in the Northeast) and gave consumers relatively inexpensive houses and furniture, but it also

Usage of but is inappropriate. There is no contrast in this construction of the sentence.

E. The systematic clearing of forests in the United States not only created farmland (especially in the Northeast), giving consumers relatively inexpensive houses and furniture, but it

Not only ... but also pair is incomplete. Subjunctive usage of 'giving' again changes the meaning. It implies the act of creating of farmland led to providing of inexpensive houses. This is nonsensical.

Re: Not only did the systematic clearing of forests in the
[#permalink]

Show Tags

14 Aug 2012, 04:58

Not only did the systematic clearing of forests in the United States create farmland (especially in the Northeast) and gave consumers relatively inexpensive houses and furniture, but it also caused erosion and very quickly deforested whole regions.

A. Not only did the systematic clearing of forests in the United States create farmland (especially in the Northeast) and gave consumers relatively inexpensive houses and furniture, but it also B. Not only did the systematic clearing of forests in the United States create farmland (especially in the Northeast), which gave consumers relatively inexpensive houses and furniture, but also C. The systematic clearing of forests in the United States, creating farmland (especially in the Northeast) and giving consumers relatively inexpensive houses and furniture, but also D. The systematic clearing of forests in the United States created farmland (especially in the Northeast) and gave consumers relatively inexpensive houses and furniture, but it also E. The systematic clearing of forests in the United States not only created farmland (especially in the Northeast), giving consumers relatively inexpensive houses and furniture, but it

My understanding :

we are looking for NOT ONLY ............ BUT ALSO construction as per stem

A : Not only................But IT also ======== Parallelism broken = EliminateE : not only.................But IT also ========== parallelism broken = Eliminate

Bxn B/C/D :

B : ...............farmaland WHICH = guess its not the farmlands that gave consumers X and Y but the clearing of forests that yielded X and Y = Eliminate

Status: worked for Kaplan's associates, but now on my own, free and flying

Joined: 19 Feb 2007

Posts: 4517

Location: India

WE: Education (Education)

Re: Not only did the systematic clearing of forests in the
[#permalink]

Show Tags

14 Aug 2012, 07:44

1

A simple requisite of not only is the element of inbuilt accentuation. But here there is no such accentuation but only a contrast. Therefore a rapid fire shot will be to eliminate all ‘not only’ choices summarily( whether accompanied by but also or not) namely A, B and E and then squarely dump C for holding a fragment, and end up finally with the bull’s eye hit of D
_________________

you can know a lot about something and not really understand it."-- a quoteNo one knows this better than a GMAT student does. Narendran +9198845 44509

Re: Not only did the systematic clearing of forests in the
[#permalink]

Show Tags

22 Oct 2018, 05:29

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.
_________________